Response to Mr. Anonymous silliness

Mr. Anonymous: The genesis of the death wish is rooted in the fall of man that we see in the Book of Genesis.

Mellankelly: And what, exactly, does this have to do with voting NO on prop. 48? This may mean something to you but in my opinion, quoting from the latest Stephen King novel would have been more compelling.

Mr. Anonymous: The unholy, yet inevitable, consequence of that pride is disobedience - eating the forbidden fruit

Mellankelly: Yeah, so? I love all fruit and I'll eat it whenever I want... the only "consequence" being timely digestion, thank you very much.

Mr. Anonymous: The ultimate end is death, as God said it would be.

Mellankelly: Well, that must be such a loverly concept for you, however, death is in no way "the end" - certainly we will all go home to God, as She wishes - mostly though, this occurs sometime after death - of course, there is always the possibility of coming back to this place (YIKES!)

Mr. Anonymous: The prototypical sin is pride, the pride that seeks to exalt the creature above the Creator: "I can be like God.

Mellankelly: Whatever dude... God is in each one of us. Regarding pride (a reasonable or justifiable self-respect), being the standard for sin... POPPYCOCK! Pride is not necessarily a bad thing - God would like us to have a reasonable or justifiable self-respect... I'm so sorry that your faith teaches you otherwise.

Mr. Anonymous: It was then a short and easy step to infanticide.

Mellankelly: Wow. Drama Queen much?

Mr. Anonymous: The exclamation point at the end of the death wish is that...

Mellankelly: There was no exclamation point at the end of the 1974 Award Winning movie, Death Wish... although, now that you mention it, it would've given the title a little more pizazz. I'll write to Michael Winner immediately.

Mr. Anonymous: It's hard to believe that we have degenerated to the point that we'll murder a helpless baby should it escape the violence of an abortion and be born alive.

Mellankelly: Nice try but there already exists a standard in regards to newly born infants. If you'd care to do the research (although it would appear as if you and factual information do not have a real close relationship) feel free to visit The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics to find that the standards are already in place. The verbiage of this law is ambiguous (at best) and will not "save" any premature infants... all it will do is cause unnecessary lawsuits against Doctors (at the expense of the tax payers; not to mention cause our insurance rates to go through the roof.) You will find the following statement from the NRP Steering Committee regarding BAIPA "at the time of delivery... the medical condition and prognosis of the newly born infant should be assessed. At that point decisions about withholding or discontinuing medical treatment that is considered futile may be considered by... providers in conjunction with the parents acting in the best interest of their child." and "The BAIPA indiscriminately defines 'born alive' to include an infant 'at any stage of development... regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion,' and it makes no reference to standards of care or best interests, nor does it specifically protect a parent’s decision-making authority" Bottom line: BAIPA is anti-abortion legislation - the objective of those vehemently opposed to abortion is to criminalize abortion. Period.

Mr. Anonymous: May God grant us the grace to awake from this deadly moral slumber, renounce the death wish, and live like truly free men and women - in the glorious freedom of the children of God

Mellankelly: No, you mean "live like truly free men" because if you happen to be a pregnant woman (regardless of whether or not that pregnancy is wanted) in your little imaginary world... you wouldn't be free - you'd be a slave to the legislatures who would have the ultimate say over what you may or may not do with your body. No thank you... you can go live in your little Theocracy if you'd wish, but I will stay right here in the the Country that I was lucky enough to be born into! The Country where a Doctor and a pregnant woman (and her loved ones) get to decide which medical procedures are in her best interest.


Anonymous said...


Your sacastic, immature comments are not a surprize...



Anonymous said...

"BAIPA is anti-abortion legislation - the objective of those vehemently opposed to abortion is to criminalize abortion. Period."

That's why Clinton, Boxer and Kennedy all supported the bill. It passed 98-0. Even Naral was not against it.

what kind of monster are you?

Anonymous said...

"No, you mean "live like truly free men" because if you happen to be a pregnant woman (regardless of whether or not that pregnancy is wanted) in your little imaginary world... you wouldn't be free - you'd be a slave to the legislatures who would have the ultimate say over what you may or may not do with your body."

When asked about abortion he replied that "it was above his paygrade", yet when asked about embryonic stem cell research and federal funding, he said that embryos should NOT be produced specifically for research, but that existing ones could be used that way...

Well, why the heck not? Why is it above his paygrade to make a moral statement about when life begins on the abortion issue, but suddenly get all moral on embryonic stem cells. Why would it matter where the embryos came from? If it IS taking a human life, then NO, NO, NO embryos should be killed, and if it isn't taking human life then ALL embryos should be up for grabs.

If it is taking human life, then so is abortion.

Can't have your cake and eat it two.

How can you be against abortion and for it? Against killing embryos, yet for it?

this isn't about a womans right. It is about a babys right. To live.

Look at it this way: Suppose you have a front yard with a fence on it. The gate has a "WELCOME" sign on it. Along comes a woman with Alzheimers...She has no way of reasoning out that the welcome sign is not meant for her...thus making her innocent...the way a newly conceived child has no way of stopping it's conception...

She wanders through your gate and onto the front porch. You argue that you can club her to death with a baseball bat because she is infringing on your property rights. We argue that you can't, considering she is innocent of any real crime, given that she isn't capable of reason and rational thought.

You say you aren't forcing US to club her to death, but just want the right to club her to death yourself.

We say, you had a WELCOME sign on your gate...If you were so freaked out by her coming on your porch (especially since it had happened many times to your neighbors before) then you should have put a lock on your gate, or removed the WELCOME sign. You are the one that is capable of making "choices", not her (not the baby). The responsibility falls on YOUR shoulders.

The government, by saying that you do indeed have the right to clobber her, is forcing US to accept your behavior, even if it means that the woman will be killed in cold blood.

You say you are not forcing us to have abortions, and we shouldn't force you not to.

You say you are not forcing US to beat the old lady with a bat, and that we shouldn't stop you.

But who is protecting/speaking up for the old lady?

You're argument that it is your porch/body and you have the right to do with it what you want, falls apart because there IS, IS, IS a third party involved. And it is that third parties rights that we are fighting for. You keep focusing on the woman's rights, but we are focusing on the bystanders rights. If you argue it from your point, of course we have no where to go...but how convenient to simply dismiss the old lady.

The government doesn't have any right to interfere. On that you are correct. By saying that you have the right to kill your child, they ARE interfering, not with your rights, but with the childs.

MellanKelly said...

Hey Jasper... it isn't surprising that you'd leave out the part where Jill Stanek admits it was "a mistake" to misrepresent what Senator Obama did in regards to BAIPA... feel free to read up on it here:

And if you'd prefer a more detailed explanation of what was actually said (again... this information is only useful in the event that you care about actual facts):

Knock yourself out Jasper!